I have a slightly (but only slightly) different perspective than those of you in this comment thread, being a woman, and what’s more, a mom. I have two sons and two daughters, all under the age of five. And I, like many women in this day and age, was molested as a young girl. Without going into an incredible amount of detail, know that in the realm of child molestation, my “case” was mild, but that certainly doesn’t mean that I haven’t had to do some serious healing over the years. Sadly, most of my healing has had more to do with forgiving those who did not bring the man to authorities, moreso than for the actual crime that was committed against me. Only in the last few years, with the encouragement of my husband, have we endeavored to get him registered as a sex offender.

Honestly, I think that’s a mostly fair punishment for what he did. His career, his marriage, his position in the church, are likely to be strongly affected by that action. I say mostly because, really, for that kind of humiliation, I would LIKE to do some serious damage to him. I would LIKE to yell, cuss, and spit in his face. To be very blunt, and forgive me, a little crass, I would LIKE for the man to be castrated. But those things are never to be. We do not live in a judicial system that castrates sex offenders. Should we? I don’t know.

Recently at a playground my daughter (almost two) was being pursued by a little boy (same age) who just had no sense of personal space. To be honest, I did kind of want his mom to come over and bavk him up a bit, as my girl was getting frustrated. Before I had a chance to intervene, her two older brothers did it for me. One grabbed her by the hand and lead her away while the other one stood in between them and the boy and said, “stop!” I was very proud of my boys, and then my son took it a step further. He shoved the boy down as hard as he could to drive the point. The boy cried. I had to take my son out and explain to him that he had already done the job of protecting his sister. He did not need to be the one punishing the boy. That child is not in our jurisdiction.

And now I need to do my best to tie all this stuff together. Here it goes. If someone came into my house in the middle of the night and attempted to harm/rape any of my family, I have no doubt that my husband would be pulling out his gun and would be doing whatever it took to stop the man in his tracks. Legally, I think it flies. He would not be the one in trouble in court. It was in our house. Our jurisdiction. Here’s the part where things get sticky. Lord, may let it never be so, but, If one of my children were hurt, or in danger, I know that my husband and I would be actively seeking the “perp” out. In the unlikely event that the police were not helping us, I know that we would not rest until that person was found, with evidence. The thing is, I know my husband could easily kill someone for harming me or our kids. Easily. Whether you think it’s right or not, doesn’t matter, because we do live in a judicial system that would likely try my husband in court and would, possibly, throw him in prison for doing so, where he would not be working and providing for his family. Not very head-of-householdish. So, while there are certainly times to fight for your family, I think that you have got to keep your rage in check, to a degree, for the sake of your family.

And If nobody ever reads this, I guess that wouldn’t be the worst thing. :)

And yes zeal is a good word for it. I look around and see all of these prisons filled with murderers, and rapists, and wonder, why? Sure we may get some evidence wrong, or mixed up, and an innocent man may die for it. But for the most part those who have been found guilty with conclusive evidence, need to have their punishment handed to them in a timely manner.

It bothers me that a man (Man A)can kill another man (Man B) and Man A goes to prison and lives till he is sixy. Man B didn’t have that choice. Man B didn’t have a jury or a judge or a chance to be granted amnesty. Man B didn’t get appeal ccourts. But yet Man A gets all those things, including a last wish.

That in a nutshell is why I am the way I am. I feel our court system is a joke. And when I become a parent, no cop will ever be as serious about a crime toward my family as I woud be. Because to him it is a job, to me it is personal.

Bottom line is, there’s a right way and a wrong way to meed out justice, be it through bustin’ caps in folks or writing citations. Certain people are authorized to bust caps in certain people under certain circumstances – but having law and order and peaceful society means that not just anybody can kill anybody for any reason.

Everyone knows that rape and murder are horrendous deeds, and most people feel that there’s a serious (if not capital) punishment necessary for the doers of those deeds. The question isn’t whether or not people should seek out these punishments for evildoers – it’s how people should go about seeking out these punishments. Those in favor of an ordered society tend to think that officers of the law bear the primary (though not exclusive) responsibility in this area. Those typically more anarchic in their approach to justice, prefer to circumvent officers of the law altogether, reducing all matters of justice to highly personal, even private, issues.

You seem to be saying things that would put you in the latter camp. If that’s the case – fine – but think about what it costs you. In choosing to abandon socially instituted norms of law, you are willfully sacrificing the expectation that society will share in your judgments about right and wrong, and so you are also choosing to sacrifice any support that society might give you. Effectively, in choosing to ignore public law, you have publically made yourself a criminal. And that’s up to you.

But you really can’t be too surprised if we tell you that we think you’re a sociopath – that’s exactly the path you’d be taking. Sociopathy, after all, is a hearty disinterest in public mores.

For your verse of turn the other cheek. I figured this one would show up. I have been in discussions before about this. A very simple counter question to that would be: Do you think that if Jesus was being beaten with a baseball bat, he would resist? Or would he be beaten to death?

Now to be fair Jesus died on the cross, and that was far worse, but once again to be fair that is what he came to do.

Knocking out someones tooth simply because they may have done it to you by accident is foolish. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, would hardly benefit anyone. For who would gain from losing an eye or tooth. What He means, and this is my own interpretation, is, some things you’ve got to let roll off your back. But in no means do I think this verse calls us to sit back and be abused.

I do want to have a real convesation, but I get frustrated at people who think it is the calling of a Christian to do everything possible not to offend others. Yes we should try not to offend others, but there is a point when you have to say “we’re not gonna take anymore” We have to draw the line somewhere. And in my short life time I have seen Christians move that line back until we haven’t got a leg to stand on.

And I will put this down again. As a man, as the head of my houshold, as the spiritual leader, I see nowhere in the Bible where I should just give up and let (as a Man) any woman or child, (as the leader of my home) any of my family, become victims to the criminals of this world. Yes there are circumstances where I cannot protect them, but I should go after and try my best to get the guy that did it to them. Because next time it could be your wife, child, daughter, or son. And if I stop them (maybe not just me, but police and such) they will not have the chance to do it again. (of course unless they get out on bail)

Jason did respond to that comment but we have blocked it because it seemed to be taking the discussion in an unhealthy direction. The essence of his response, and Jason feel free to corect me if I misrepresent you, was that since rape is more serious than getting cut off then the response to one need not be a universal response. Your response to a sin is dependent upon the gravity of that sin.

Is that what you said, more or less Jason?

I’m sure you see a difference, so I’d like you to explain how I’m misunderstanding you.

I am no pacifist but this is just one of the passages you will have to wrestle with, Jason.

Also, let’s try and be charitable in our discussions. Jason, if you’re interested in having a real conversation that’s great…if you’re just wanting to stand on your soap box and pronounce judgment on those who disagree then you should find a different website to do that. And Dane, as usual, you don’t have to call people names to make a point…not everytime, anyways ;)

I highly doubt you can find scripture on ignoring punishment. Because I have looked for it, and have yet found that magical verse.

You would have me believe that God does not like punishment. That he wants us to love all and give everyone what ever they desire. Including our religion, our Bible, our faith, and eventually our lives. You would have me give up my faith simply because you don’t want to offend someone. Well it is offensive. I believe what the Bible says and I believe we should act accordingly. God gave us feelings, and common sense, maybe more people should use it. Istead of taking the Bible apart verse by verse, and using it out of context to fit your needs.

Oh my. Look who turned from potential sociopath into a Mister Sillypants. You’re just hopping from one identity to another, aren’t you Jason?

Nobody here cares if people hold other perspectives from themselves. I certainly don’t. What probably strikes people as strange is that someone would hold such a flatly unbiblical view and argue in its favour on a Christian site on a basis not founded on scriptural evidence but instead on your feelings on the matter, your fear that the government that God put over you is inadequate, and the fact that your rage can pretty well justify any action you choose to take. Oh, and also, the view you represent is spookily anarchic and would essentially lead to the downfall of society.

You can think with your guts if you want, but (as Nick Hornby tells us) your guts are full of crap.

I am not John, nor John I. It may seem strange to you and the people on this blog that some people might believe differently than you. But alas there are people out there who would rather not roll over and die.

John?
Jason?

Correction: my previous comment was to be directed toward John not Jason.

I mean, granted, a character like that could make for an interesting story – but it’s nothing I’d like to see as commonplace in my city. There’d be a lotta frigged up cars. And besides, flawed as it is, I still think the legal system does a decent job in many cases. I certainly don’t feel like I’m in anarchy. Frankly, I feel safer under the current order than I would if I was around vigilante-hopeful types as yourself.

So, just so I clearly understand what you’re argument is based on this is what you’ve said: because the Jews lived under a dictatorship they had to obey the law, but since we live in a democracy we don’t have to obey the law.

You’re certainly entitled to that opinion, but it is nothing more than your opinion and has no theological, Biblical, and or “logical” basis. In fact it seems like it would make more sense not to obey the law in an evil dictatorship than in a government where we can help determine its direction and policies. But in fact Jesus’ statement doesn’t seem to take into consideration in any way the form of rule. So, again, just some thoughts.